The fact that no team other than Houston wants to interview Dunleavy speaks for itself. Don't give me thousands of reasons. The fact is Dunleavy sucks. Wake up, Rockets. JVG is your only choice!!!
Insightful. Is it possible that you don't want people giving you a THOUSAND reasons because your ONE reason (he sucks) is lame? BTW, 2 other teams besides us have expressed interest in Dunleavy.
You guys are talking about Atlanta??? They want Dunleavy because the owner is his buddy plus no decent coach would want to go there. Is it clear enough???
The most desirable coaching jobs are/were Houston, Detroit, Cleveland, Charlotte, Philly. I believe Dunleavy has only been mentioned Houston amongst those teams listed. Maybe to some people in Houston getting Dunleavy would not be viewed as getting a 2nd tier guy, but perhaps it's because he played on the Rockets before. Outside of that I think that most people think that Dunleavy is not a very desired coach at this point. Larry Brown is obviously the guy that everyone wanted and then it'd probably be Van Gundy or Silas, but I don't even think Dunleavy is on the radar of a lot of teams. I'm not saying Dunleavy will be bad, he might even be great. However, if he sucks for us a lot of people will say I told you so.
Brown wasn't on Cleveland or Charlotte's lists. What does that say for him? (its about the right coach for the right job; not any coach for any job). Yet he has been mentioned as a coach for LA, Houston and Atlanta, three teams with definite talent, but who underachieve as a group (something Dunleavy has experience with in Portland). Well, I dont think CD and Les view Dunleavy as a 2nd tier guy or else they wouldn't have not met Brown's contract demands and let Silas walk. (for the record, I have ranked Brown as a low 1st tier coach and Dunleavy has a high 2nd tier coach with not much space in between them). Most people, meaning the BBS??? I am sure the Rockets disagree with you. I agree that Brown is more desirable than Dunleavy, but I am not sure about Silas and Van Gundy. I would take Dunleavy over both of them.
The reality is that the Rockets' job was not the top position open. So it is unrealistic for us to expect to hire the top coach available.
I'd say he wasn't on the list because they knew they had no shot at getting him. The only team on that list that people are really considering desirable is Houston. I think paying well over $10 million in salary bet. Rudy and Brown is the main factor. Publicly they'd never say Dunleavy to Brown is a major downgrade, but that's the perception. I'm not sure why everyone feels Dunleavy was such a great coach. Dunleavy's always seemed to have a great deal of talent but not be able to quite put it all together. I don't think he's bad, but I really do believe there's a reason there hasn't been a ton of interest for th guy. I was saying that there might be a bias amongst the Rockets fans because Dunleavy played in Houston. I think most people when you say Mike Dunleavy vs. Van Gundy vs. Brown would not pick Dunleavy. Most people as in basketball experts and fans. I personally believe that Silas and Van Gundy are better coaches than Dunleavy. I could be wrong and maybe we'll hire Dunleavy and he'll be amazing, but I really think the initial reaction will be the Rockets had the premiere job opening and fired a Houston icon to get a coach that hasn't been in the league for several years that was never regarded as a great coach.
Actually, I'd say before Detroit threw its hat in the ring, Houston was the most attractive job out there and I'm being as objective as I can in saying that. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise with the other openings being in Washington, L.A. Clippers, Cleveland and Philadelphia. Houston had the title of "most desireable head coaching job" for almost a week and chose not to take advatage of it.
And perhaps those other teams knew that Dunleavy was a lock for the Atlanta job, and thus, were not interested in him either. Depends on your point of view. All three teams have some nice talent, although Houston's probably looks better than the other 2. Check this thread out. There is a great discussiong going on there about Dunleavy's career which would probably make you reevaluate whether Dunleavy had as much to work with as people think he did: http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58664 I would agree that given a choice, Brown would be selected over Dunleavy in most cases. I do not agree about Dunleavy over Van Gundy. You won't find a consensus there. Please elaborate further. What have they accomplished that Dunleavy hasn't? Again, this is your opinion. I don't think Dunleavy is considered a great coach along the lines of a Jackson, Riley, Brown, etc., but he definitely heads up the next group.
Of course, Dunleavy might not be considered by teams other than Houston or Atlanta because he knows if he doesn't get one, he'll get the other.
Houston is still the best coaching position available. However, we're still paying Rudy close to 6M, so we cannot outbid teams for anyone.
Well Deuce I actually agree with you here. They should have struck while the iron was hot. Houston isnt really a big market but I think with our "core" of Yao and Steve it should have keep us even above the Pistons, but thats just my thought, and doesnt really amount to much.
" Houston will likely end up with Jeff Van Gundy, who has suddenly emerged in public perception as a cross between Auerbach and Wooden by having the smarts to not coach the Knicks the last two seasons. Van Gundy will replace Rudy Tomjanovich, who was pushed into resigning by Rockets owner Les Alexander. The whisperers say that Tomjanovich just didn't do a good enough job getting his guards, Cuttino Mobley and Steve Francis to run the offense through Yao Ming. (Pause here to admit personal bias on this issue). Now, let's move on. Oh, please. Tomjanovich did a wonderful job helping Yao acclimate to the league when alleged experts were ready to write the guy off after one week. The team has no point guard, just two gunners in the backcourt who some say actually track their shots DURING games. When Tomjanovich had to leave the team in March for cancer treatments the Rockets were in the playoffs. They ended up 43-39, meaning if they had played an Eastern Conference schedule they would have won 50 games and been one of the top three seeds. Of course to be fair, we all know that might not have saved Tomjanovich's job either. Just ask Carlisle."
Yeah, but that's exactly why they NEED a coach. If they were a good team that won games they'd still have the old coach! I do not get the feeling that Atlanta is where MD really wants to be. I think that CD wants Dunleavy and is waiting for Uncle Les to agree. Mike would be a perfect fit for the Rockets and would be able to get them into the top tier of the Western Conference. A lot of folks here want a sexy big named coach like Larry Brown or Van Gundy but that's just not what this team really needs to take that perverbial next step. Remember, Don Nelson was sitting on the beach in Maui 3 years ago seemingly out of basketball for good after that fiasco in New York. The Mavs hired him (in desperation) and have progressed to a 60 win season and the Western Conference Finals in 3 years. How many of the folks here would kill for the Rockets to achieve something similar? My point here is that the biggest name is not always the right man for the job. If that's the case then why is Byron Scott & Greg Popovich coaching in the NBA Finals and not Larry Brown, Phil Jackson or Pat Riley?
Since Dunleavy's been fired about 2 years ago, there hasn't seemed to be much interest in hiring him. I only remember his name coming up when his son was expected to go lottery last year. Depends on your point of view. All three teams have some nice talent, although Houston's probably looks better than the other 2.[/QUOTE] Paul Silas said this was the premiere job opening. It's all been written in columns and mentioned by analysts on ESPN. Saying it's your point of view can be an argument for just about anything. Check this thread out. There is a great discussiong going on there about Dunleavy's career which would probably make you reevaluate whether Dunleavy had as much to work with as people think he did: http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58664 [/QUOTE] I've checked that thread and I've posted on it earlier. Dunleavy was not a bad coach, but when he was fired he was coaching the team that had the highest payroll in NBA history and was unable to take them to the promise land when people throughout the league felt they had the most talented team. I would agree that given a choice, Brown would be selected over Dunleavy in most cases. I do not agree about Dunleavy over Van Gundy. You won't find a consensus there. Please elaborate further. What have they accomplished that Dunleavy hasn't? [/QUOTE] It's not always about accomplishments. Brown, Dunleavy, Van Gundy all do not have rings. Yet if you took a poll of all the GMs in the league I'd wager that almost all to all would say that Brown is the best. When Van Gundy left, he left on his own accord. Dunleavy was fired for failing to meet expectations. Van Gundy was known for overacheiving with the Knicks. How many coaches have had their name chanted by a New York crowd... Jeff Van Gundy. Jeff Van Gundy. In fact how many coaches ever have had the crowd chant because of the work you've done. Van Gundy is probably the hardest working coach out there and I think our team needs more of that. Again, this is your opinion. I don't think Dunleavy is considered a great coach along the lines of a Jackson, Riley, Brown, etc., but he definitely heads up the next group. [/QUOTE] From 1992 to 1996, his record was 107-221. That Bucks team as someone mentioned before was comparable to our Rockets team in terms of talent.
There was not any interest in Phil Jackson in the 2 years that he was gone either. Perhaps Dunleavy wanted to take a break for a few years like Phil did? Yet, it was such a premiere job opening that he jumped all over Cleveland's offer 1 or days after his interview with us. Silas must not have been that impressed with our situation if he wouldn't give us at least the weekend to make him an offer. Yet, you didn't check the thread very thoroughly or you would have seen several posters (including me) make the arguement that while Portland had talent, they did not have that one defineable talent/HOFer/go to guy that every championship team needs. Agreed. He left because he lost control of the team/players quit on him. He did what Brown does. Quit before you get fired. Same thing that happend to Dunleavy. Dunleavy should have quit before they had the chance to fire him. Although that was said, I would disagree. Dunleavy was fired because he had lost the respect of the players (keep in mind who their players are). He was also fired because it was easier to fire him and hope that another coach can come in and possibly right the ship (Cheeks proved he couldn't). Now, Whitsit gets fired (that team is all on him) and Portland is looking to revamp their roster this summer because they know that no coach can win with this group. 1) I wouldn't call that overachieving in a gross sense. He had Ewing, Houston and Sprewell to work with, as well two decent big men in Kurt Thomas and Marcus Camby. He won in a weak conference in the later half of his career. Its not like he had no talent to work with there. 2) Dunleavy works hard too, just like JVG. Just because a crowd doesn't chant your name, doesn't mean you are a hard worker. If we are going to do selective stats, lets look at his record without Milwaukee. Riet is the one that made the silly comparison of our roster to the Bucks roster of the mid 90s (again, go back and reference that thread and you will see that we had far more talent than they did). That entire Bucks team was made up of Vin Baker (whos career started to nose diver after Dunleavy left (this proves that Dunleavy gets the most out of his players)), Glen Robinson (a good player, but not someone you build around) and a bunch of journeyman. So, without Milwaukee, he was 291-169 (.632%). Pretty darn impressive what Dunleavy can do when he has talent to work with.
And what does Dunleavy do with teams that are not completely loaded with top 1-2-3-4 talent--his record is in the low 30s. Over the last 25 years of the Bucks franchise, Dunleavy had 4 of the 5 worst years and his other year was sixth worse out of 25. The bottom line is for all 3 head coaching jobs Dunleavy has not been able to meet expectations. If nothing else that is consistency across of range of situations from completely loaded to marginally talented teams--just not the kind of consistency we are looking for.
Dunleavy coached 3 teams and got fired 3 times. Does it mean something to you? The record itself says something. Go figure.
